FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 398/11 Arkadiusz SZEPTYCKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 16 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2010 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Arkadiusz Szeptycki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Poznań Remand Centre . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Imas, a lawyer practising in Poznań.

2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 10 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing several offences in an organise d criminal group (in particular theft, robbery, fraud). On 1 1 October 2008 the Poznań Stare Miasto District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty , the related risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings and go into hiding

5. On 26 March 2009 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor requested the Pozna ń Regional Court to prolong the applicant ’ s detention until 10 July 200 9. The prosecutor submitted that the original grounds for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention remained still valid.

6. On 6 April 2009 the court allowed the request, extending the applicant ’ s detention until 10 July 2009 . It found that keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might abscond and go into hiding and that he might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony . The court also referred to the severity of the anticipated penalty.

7. Between 6 and 26 May 2009 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings (before the Kraków District Court). Subsequently, between 23 June 2009 and 15 February 2014 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed on him in yet another set of proceedings (before the Olsztyn Regional Court).

8. On 2 9 June 2009 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Pozna Å„ Regional Court. The applicant together with six other persons was charged with sixty- four counts of robbery and fraud, committed while acting in an organised criminal group.

9. On 6 July 2009 the Poznań Regional Court prolonged the applicant ’ s detention until 10 November 2009. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. It further noted that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence , induce witnesses and also given the risk of absconding and going into hiding. The court also stressed that the proceedings concerned several other members of the same criminal group .

10. During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant ’ s detention pending trial on 12 October 2009, 29 April 2010, 7 October 2010, 5 April 2011, 4 October 2011, 26 January 2012 and 25 July 2012. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’ s continued detention.

11. The applicant ’ s appeals against decisions prolonging h is detention and all h is subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release h im , were unsuccessful.

12. On 26 October 2012 the Poznań Regional Court released the applicant from pre-trial detention.

COMPLAINT

13. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

14. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

A . Period to be taken into consideration

15. The applicant ’ s detention started on 10 October 2008 , when he was arrested on suspicion of committing several offences in an organised criminal group.

16. However, between 6 and 26 May 2009 and between 23 June 2009 and 15 February 2014 he had served prison sentences imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him. Th e s e term s, as being covered by Article 5 § 1 (a), must therefore be subtracted from the period of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3.

17. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration under Article 5 § 3 lasted eight months.

B . The parties ’ arguments

18. The Government argued that the length of pre-trial detention in the applicant ’ s case had been compatible with the standards stemming from Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

19. The applicant disagreed and submitted that his detention had not been justified. He claimed that decisions prolonging his detention on remand had been based on the same grounds.

C . The Court ’ s assessment

20. The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated i n a number of its previous judg ments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 110 et seq ; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006- ... , with further references).

21. The Court observes that the judicial authorities relied, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, on the risk of obstruction of the proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses. Secondly, the authorities relied on the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable.

22. The Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged may have warranted his detention at the early stage of the proceedings. Moreover, given the relative complexity of th e case and the need to obtain a considerable amount of evidence, the Court is prepared to accept that there existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant ’ s detention during the time necessary to terminate the investigation, to draw up the bill of indictment and to hear evidence from the accused.

23. In addition, the authorities relied on the severity of the sentence which was likely to be imposed on the applicant. In this respect, the Court notes that the severity of the possible sentence is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending. Nevertheless, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of deten tion on remand (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria , no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001; Garycki v. Poland , no. 14348/02, § 47, 6 February 2007 ). However, taking into account the particular circumstances of the instant case, the Court considers that the severity of the anticipated penalty taken in conjunction with the other grounds relied on by the authorities were “sufficient” and “relevant” to justify holding the applicant in detention for the entire period. With regard to the requirement of special diligence, the Court firstly notes that no significant periods of inactivity occurred on the part of the prosecution authorities and the trial court. Furthermore, the Court notes that the criminal case at issue was a relatively complex one on account of the seriousness and number of the charges against the applicant and the fact that it concerned 7 co-accused . A significant amount of evidence had to be examined in the course of the proceedings. For these reasons, the Court considers that the domestic authorities handled the applicant ’ s case with relative expedition.

24. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

FatoÅŸ Aracı George Nicolaou              Deputy Registrar President